Once the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise - Supreme Court

Once the prosecution  had successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise, says the Supreme Court

The  Chief Justice India,  N.V. Ramana and two other Justices, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli reportedly cancelled the bail bonds of the accuseds/appellants,  namely Sabitri Samataray and Bidyadhar Praharaj, wife and husband in the present case and accordingly directed them to surrender before the Trial Court for police custody. The High Court  of Odisha at Cuttack in confirmation with judgment of Session Court convicted the accused appellants under Sections 304(II), 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the charges of  murdering the deceased victim who had love relationship with daughter of the appellants which led them to file the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Trail Court had convicted the accused/appellants and their daughter under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 34 of IPC for which an appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the trial Court  before the High Court. The sentence of the accused/appellants confirmed whereas daughter was acquitted as she was not present at the scene of offence. The Court also observed that she had no role in the actual incident in the actual incident and therefore cannot be termed as abettor to the crime.

The High Court also observed from the fact of the case that

“Something had transpired between the appellants and the deceased, which ensued in an assault. It was further observed that thereafter, it appeared that the deceased was somehow overpowered by the appellants and was unarmed. Thereafter, both the appellants throttled him to death and poured acid on him to impede identification. However, as there was a strong possibility of existence of grave and sudden provocation, which was discernible from adduced evidence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to conviction under Section 304 (II) IPC, and both the accused were thereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years”.

 

Hence being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and also failed to discharge its duty of burden of proof. In the absence of the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court cannot supplant Section 106 of the Evidence Act to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon the prosecution referring to case of Shambhu Nath Mehra vs. State of Bihar (1956 SCR 199) wherein it was held that Section 106 is not a substitute for the burden of proof that rests upon the prosecution.

            The High Court has erred in convicting the appellant by entirely relying upon the circumstantial evidence.  The High Court also erred in dismissing the contention of the appellants regarding the disputed time of death of the deceased sans eye witness.

            The judgment of the  High Court lacks any prima facie finding which would indicate  participation of the appellants in the even leading to the death of the deceased. It  has failed to rely upon any individual incident which would indicate the appellants’ participation, resulting in the death of the deceased.

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT, THE STATE OF ODISHA.

            It was submitted by the respondent that the High Court relying upon the facts, creditworthy evidence has rightly observed that the incident did occur at the time and place alleged by the prosecution wherein appellants were definitely involved.

It was rightly observed that the version of the second set  witnesses was more convincing as it established the relationship between the deceased and the appellants, which, to an extent was accepted by the appellant’s husband herein and the daughter.

 No  one else except the appellants  were present at the scene of the offence and therefore, on account of the appellants having special knowledge, reference to Section 106 of Evidence Act has been rightly made. The contention made by the appellants that no reliance was placed by the prosecutiuon on Section 106 of the Evidence Act is incorrect

The respondent also made reference to a judgment in a  case Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharastra (2006) 10 SCC 681 wherein it was observed:

“15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.”

 

The Learned Counsel also submitted that as per the deposition of the medical expert, the deceased had died before being brought to the hospital and that the mere contradiction cannot form the basis for rejecting the evidence produced by the prosecution in its entirety. The  prosecution has successfully established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was strangulated to death by the appellants and thereafter attempted to conceal his identity by pouring acid upon the dead body.

After hearing both the parties at length and perusal of facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the opinion that whether the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proof and that the chain of events has successfully established so as to attract application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

The Court went on to explain Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following words

“The section postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual.  Although the Section does not exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specifically within his knowledge which he must prove”.

Thus the Court came to the conclusion that “Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosection, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. The Court also viewed by referring to case, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharastra (2006) 10 SCC 681 that moreover, in a case based on circumstancial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or which is not true, then such a response in itself become an additional link in the chain of events”.

The Court analysed on perusal of facts on record that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing intention of the appellants for the commission of the offence. The intention of the appellants when analysed in the light of the statements made by all the sets of witnesses and fatal injuries sustained by the deceased at the relevant place and time certainly makes out a strong case that death of the deceased was indeed caused by the appellants’.

“Therefore, once the prosecution  had successfully established the chain of events, the burden was on the appellants to prove it otherwise”.

The High Court has rightly observed that the onus of proving  under Section 106 of Evidence Act that how deceased lost his life was on the appellant.

The appellant having failed to explain the same or offer any credible defence strongly point out the guilt of the accused  appellant, the appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Apex Court also reiterated to the viewpoint  as observed in the case of Ashok Vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) 4 SCC 393

 

“12. From the study of above stated judgments and many others delivered by this Court over a period of years, the rule can be summarised as that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to bring sufficient evidence pointing towards guilt of the accused. However, in case of last seen together, the prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as the accused himself would have special knowledge of the incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, last seen together itself is not a conclusive proof but along with other circumstances surrounding the incident, like relations between the accused and the deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from the accused, etc. non- explanation of death of the deceased, may lead to a presumption of guilt.”

 

Case: Sabitri Samantaray  Versus State Of Odisha  (Criminal Appeal No. 988 Of 2017)

With Bidyadhar Praharaj Versus State Of Odisha (Criminal Appeal No. 860 Of 2022)

DOJ: 20.09.2022

Download PDF file judgment

 

Also Read:

Accused cannot be held guilty because he failed to explain under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same can only be held as additional link to complete the chain of circumstance.